Child Support Liability

[moodys]

Really?!? You have extremely poor powers of observation then. Did you infer that from these posts?

That's what I was pondering as well. I wasn't aware of any instance you've made the claim that no parent is obliged to provide for the child.

 

[DallasApple]

On the BC issue for men? Men if you want a good cause? I will go find it but they have invented a BC method for men that is 99.99 % effective.Its a one time shot in the scrotum and it basically is some sort of benign chemical that acts like a shredder when the sperm passes through.I think it has to do with positive/ negative force?(sorry I'm no scientist).Its permanent .but also 100% reversable with one more shot that deactivates the chemical.

Immediate safe permanent BC that is 99% affective and can be reversed immediately.

Why isn't it available? Because there is not enough money to be made on it.

This infuriates me.And its not just a man issue either.How many woman taking the pill ? With all kinds of side affects and risks including certain cancers/stroke and ultimate fertility issues from long term use...libido issues etc...

 

[DallasApple]

The man has to pay for her decision to handle the mistake they both made.

But she pays too.

 

[Alceste]

But ultimately the woman decides whether or not a man is going to be a father though. If all that fails, if both the man and the woman fail to prevent the pregnancy, the woman chooses whether or not they have a child. Right?

The father has a say in whether or not a child is created, but he has no say in whether or not a child is born, which is a pretty important life event that he has no right to decide for himself.

No, the man decides whether he is going to be a father, using the birth control options available to him. The woman also decides whether she is going to be a mother, using the birth control options available to her. It just so happens that some of her options are still available to her "after the fact", while all of his options are exhausted.

If the two of them do end up having a child, due to not exercising any of their individual birth control options, then they are both equally responsible for it, but either one can still pass on legal custody to another responsible, willing adult and renounce their own parental access and obligations (at least that's what I'm proposing). I don't believe it's fair to the child not to have the support of at least two parents, but I don't think those parents necessarily have to be the biological parents, or even in a nuclear family relationship. It could be the mother and her mother. The father and his father. An uncle and a sister. Etc. Any combination of at least two adults could share that responsibility, but a child in a single parent household with no outside support is at a major disadvantage.

 

[Alceste]

Exactly. Use it. You're consistently championing women's rights in the wrong thread.

I'm discussing men's issues in a men's issues DIR. If you think any of my posts are inappropriate, report them and let the mods decide.

FYI, there is a subsection of masculism that is symbiotic with feminism. It has the same underlying philosophy of eradicating gender norms and stereotypes, but focuses on issues where men are discriminated against. (Child custody, ADHD prescriptions, sexual assault support services, domestic abuse, etc). That's the perspective I am speaking from.

I don't think the subsection of masculism that is primarily concerned with bashing women and feminists and doesn't give a fiddler's fart about how gender stereotypes negatively affect men would even be able to operate under RF rules.

 

[moodys]

I'm discussing men's issues in a men's issues DIR. If you think any of my posts are inappropriate, report them and let the mods decide.

Yes, I was just reading the actual rules for the first time: -For any DIR or discussion sub-forum that is colored green, non-members of that area may make respectful posts that comply with the tenets and spirit of that area. This includes questions, as well as knowledgeable comments.

I don't think you've been doing that. Reported.

 

[Alceste]

Yes, I was just reading the actual rules for the first time: -For any DIR or discussion sub-forum that is colored green, non-members of that area may make respectful posts that comply with the tenets and spirit of that area. This includes questions, as well as knowledgeable comments.

I don't think you've been doing that. Reported.

Good luck with that.

 

[freethinker44]

If the two of them do end up having a child, due to not exercising any of their individual birth control options, then they are both equally responsible for it, but either one can still pass on legal custody to another responsible, willing adult and renounce their own parental access and obligations (at least that's what I'm proposing).

Unless I'm misunderstanding you, that's what I'm proposing too. Either parent should be able to renounce their parental access and obligations (except I would add: within a reasonable time frame. It would be pretty messed up for one parent to lead the other to believe they will be there and do their part and then renege when the child is born).

 

[Alceste]

Unless I'm misunderstanding you, that's what I'm proposing too. Either parent should be able to renounce their parental access and obligations (except I would add: within a reasonable time frame. It would be pretty messed up for one parent to lead the other to believe they will be there and do their part and then renege when the child is born).

Sure, I think we basically agree, except that I think the abdicating parent's responsibilities need to be legally passed to some other person. They can't just leave them unfulfilled, placing the entire burden and expense of the child's upbringing on a single parent (male or female). That would be a poverty sentence in most cases, and increase the probability of psychological and behavioral problems in the child's future.

 

[DallasApple]

[QUOTESure, I think we basically agree, except that I think the abdicating parent's responsibilities need to be legally passed to some other person. ][/QUOTE]

That I could agree to I think.No way would I for one ever advocate for either parent to just basically walk off from the child leaving the other the sole burden.UNLESS they both agreed to it.

I know people that have done that.Just there was no formal legal agreement.Like I agree not to sue you for child support if you just stay out of our lives on a handshake.As a matter of fact my DIL's parents did that.Her father has never paid a penny for her support and they have never met face to face.The first time she ever spoke to him she was in her early 20's.

This would also protect the parent who keeps the child from having the other one suddenly show up years later demanding their parental rights.

 

[Alceste]

That I could agree to I think.No way would I for one ever advocate for either parent to just basically walk off from the child leaving the other the sole burden.UNLESS they both agreed to it.

I know people that have done that.Just there was no formal legal agreement.Like I agree not to sue you for child support if you just stay out of our lives on a handshake.As a matter of fact my DIL's parents did that.Her father has never paid a penny for her support and they have never met face to face.The first time she ever spoke to him she was in her early 20's.

This would also protect the parent who keeps the child from having the other one suddenly show up years later demanding their parental rights.

Yeah, ideally the parents would come to a mutually agreeable arrangement. That does seem to happen already in the majority of cases - the couple decides between them, or they decide with the assistance of a mediator. Only about 2% of cases ever end up in court, and yet 80% of single parent households are headed by women.

I think if we want to see more representation of men and fathers as custodial parents after a break-up, it is the social attitudes we need to tackle rather than discrimination by the courts. I think women are assuming their partners either can't or don't want to raise the kid, and men are assuming the kid "naturally" belongs with the mother, so the arrangements most couples make seem to assume a maternal privilege (or obligation, depending on your perspective )

 

[DallasApple]

Only about 2% of cases ever end up in court,

Ha! I'm one of them then LOL!!..Mine is a strange case though.I was 14 he was 16 .He denied /questioned paternity his parents hired an attorney.My parents hired an attorney and took um to court. Until then by the way it was "slander" for us to put the fathers name on the BC it was "unknown" .That's mostly what my parents wanted .Him to have a fathers name /know who his father was.And they felt like his parents should be equally responsible for my medical bills .Actually I had insurance.But no coverage for the baby and his medical bills were enormous (for back then not for now) he was 7 weeks early.

He was proven to be the father like one in a 500 million chance he wasn't. Sorry dude.Anyway the parents paid 1/2 the medical bills he was ordered to start paying $100 a month .That took 2 years.


He also had a right to visitation they told him to work it out with me if I refused or he was not satisfied he could sue me for scheduled visits.He decided he wanted to meet our son.Called me.I agreed he could come the very next morning (his request) .And we have hardly spent one day apart since.Married for 25 years now our son is 30.

Told you he liked the way my milk tasted.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The issue here is, these rights do not address the right of a man's refusal to provide for any impending child.

Is that a right? Should it be?

If so, does it supersede the right of the child to be clothed, fed, and sheltered?

 

[DallasApple]

Is that a right? Should it be?

You didn't ask me but no.I don't think its a 'right" to refuse to provide for an impending child unless like in my case he DID have the right to refuse by saying "the kid is not my son".I had to prove it.Until then it was all my responsibility and that landed on my parents shoulders.They supported me and my son for two years after he was born before the father or his parents had to pay a red cent.Not one crumb of food or thread of fabric or anything.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

If you're still having trouble with your inference process, I can help. One or both or the adoptive parents will care for and be 100% responsible for the child.

Exactly who do you think has a DUTY to adopt a child when the parents decide they want to give it up?

Even if Children's Aid or who-have-you will accept all of these children, this isn't the same ss adoption. Some wards of the state never get adopted and instead grow up in foster care. That sort of life will severely disadvantage the child.

You can't just snap your fingers to make a new loving home for an unwanted child appear. I don't think we can look at the issue from only one perspective by treating the father's intersts as paramount. Favouring the father's interests the way you describe would mean disadvantaging at least some of the children affected; their interests need to be considered as well for a balanced approach.

 

[DallasApple]

Exactly.There is no guarantee a child will be adopted.

 

[freethinker44]

You can't just snap your fingers to make a new loving home for an unwanted child appear. I don't think we can look at the issue from only one perspective by treating the father's intersts as paramount. Favouring the father's interests the way you describe would mean disadvantaging at least some of the children affected; their interests need to be considered as well for a balanced approach.

Well, that's kind of a moot point because forcing someone to care for or support an unwanted child doesn't mean they will get a loving home or the mandated support. It only means the parent who doesn't want the child will be penalized for it.

And I'm not treating the father's interests as paramount. I am treating the mother's and father's interests equally and giving them equal choice in whether or not to have a child.

Either way, the vast majority of infants placed up for adoption are adopted, so in a lot of ways, it could be argued it is better for the unwanted child's sake to place it up for adoption, considering court ordered support is pretty much meaningless in terms of actual support for the child.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Well, that's kind of a moot point because forcing someone to care for or support an unwanted child doesn't mean they will get a loving home or the mandated support. It only means the parent who doesn't want the child will be penalized for it.

And I'm not treating the father's interests as paramount. I am treating the mother's and father's interests equally and giving them equal choice in whether or not to have a child.

You're treating the father's interests as superior to the interests of the child.

Either way, the vast majority of infants placed up for adoption are adopted, so in a lot of ways, it could be argued it is better for the unwanted child's sake to place it up for adoption, considering court ordered support is pretty much meaningless in terms of actual support for the child.

- "the vast majority" is not all. You're still describing a situation where nobody has an obligation to make sure the child's needs are met.

- A child who is wanted by one parent is not "unwanted", and in the cases we're talking about here, the only obstacle to providing the child with a loving home that provides for the child's needs is money. In these cases, I'd say it's more beneficial for the child (and probably cheaper) for the child to stay with the mother and have the difference between what she can pay for herself and what the child needs to be "topped up" from some other source. Maybe we can have a discussion about whether that "topping up" should come from the (presumed unwilling) father or someone else (some branch of government, most likely), but giving the child up is really not a proper option in the vast majority of cases we're talking about: it's badfor the child, it's unnecessarily expensive, it takes adoptive homes away from the kids who truly need them... there's nothing positive in it.

 

[DallasApple]

Well, that's kind of a moot point because forcing someone to care for or support an unwanted child doesn't mean they will get a loving home or the mandated support. It only means the parent who doesn't want the child will be penalized for it.

But many times it means they will (get the mandated support) from the parents who do pay and ONLY pay because they are forced to.Without the "threat" of being penalized there would just be that many more children without the support. Just because some don't pay anyway doesn't mean its not working at all.

 

[DallasApple]

[QUOTEYou're treating the father's interests as superior to the interests of the child.][/QUOTE]

That's why it will never work.One thing is for sure the child did not ASK to even be here and they can not take care of themselves.I think its taking recreational sex to a new level when after the fun is over and a child is the result its all about your "right' to not have to help provide for it basics.